The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.

Meaningless excuse.

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

No, let's mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It's a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You're making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I'll hear of it. Toodle-oo.